Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 NW2D 401 - Tieszen v. John Morrell & Co.

Tieszen v. John Morrell & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
May 2015
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2015

16 state decisions

80199520002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Permann v. South Dakota Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Division · Application of Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. · Dartt v. Berghorst · Schuck v. John Morrell & Co. · Sellers v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “makes the same review of the administrative agency's decision as did the circuit court, unaided by any presumption that the circuit court's decision was correct. Appeal of Templeton, 403 N.W.2d 398 (S.D.1987). When the issue is a question of fact, the actions of the agency are judged by the clearly erroneous standard. Application of Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 382 N.W.2d 413 (S.D.1986). When the issue is a question of law, the actions of the agency are fully reviewable. Matter of State & City Sales Tax Liability, 437 N.W.2d 209 (S.D.1989). Mixed questions of law and fact are also fully reviewable. Permann v. Department of Labor, Unemp. Ins. Div., 411 N.W.2d 113 (S.D.1987).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Finally, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that the notice period did not begin to run where an employee had suffered an injury where the injury did not require him to miss work or cause him an economic loss. That court held that the notice period did not begin to run until the severity of the injury was medically diagnosed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “disability was caused by a work activity which can be gradual and progressive in nature, [when] the date of the `injury' is the date when pain prevents the employee from continuing to work.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.